The defendant vendor of a fuel oil tank which was alleged to have leaked sought a defence from its insurers under three separate liability insurance policies. One insurer was unable to rely on the limitation period in its policy and was required to provide a defence. The claims did not fall within coverage or were excluded under the two other policies.

In a motor vehicle action, the limitation period for the plaintiff to make a claim for uninsured motorist coverage to his own insurer did not start to run until he was alerted that the driver and insurance information in the police report regarding the accident might be incorrect and it was reasonable for him to have relied on the information in the police report until that time.

Decision granting summary judgment dismissing insured's action was upheld on basis that insured did not meet qualifying conditions of disability policy and commenced action more than two years after becoming aware of disability.

The defendants brought a summary judgment application to have the plaintiff’s action dismissed as barred by the Limitations Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, c. 24, on the basis the plaintiff’s action was commenced two years and 21 days after the motor vehicle accident at issue. The court dismissed the defendants’ limitation defence on the basis the plaintiff did not subjectively nor objectively know that her injuries were permanent in the 21 day period after the accident.

A decision that an insurer’s denial of benefits provided incomplete reasons for the denial as it did not enclose the report of a medical examiner relied on for the denial and that the limitation period did not start to run was held to be reasonable on judicial review.

Contractual limitation period for making a claim against an excess motor vehicle insurer began to run from the time the insured had accumulated a body of evidence which would give him a reasonable chance of demonstrating that his claim exceeded the limits. Further, it was equitable in the circumstances that the insured was granted a four year extension for filing the claim.

An insured's application for benefits under a policy issued to his employer, submitted two and a half years after the deadline, was considered timely because the insured had not been provided with the policy or claims documents by his employer.

Where a person is not a named insured on an automobile policy and that person operates a vehicle listed on that policy, the policy holder for the vehicle is not absolutely liable under section 258 of the Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. I.8, if that person is involved in a motor vehicle accident. Section 258 will not be engaged unless it is established that the operator of the vehicle was an insured under the policy. To be an insured under the policy, the operator of the vehicle must have been either a named insured or a person driving with the named insured’s consent at the time of the accident, and the vehicle being driven must have been owned by a named insured.

The insurer’s failure to provide written notice of the applicable limitation period to the insured did not cause the limitation period for commencing an action to be waived or suspended on the bases of either promissory estoppel or the Fair Practices Regulation, Alta Reg 128/2001. However, section 5.3(2) of the Fair Practices Regulation, which requires insurers to provide claimants with written notice of the applicable limitation period within 60 days of becoming aware of a claim, is now in force. Consequently, insurers will be required to provide insureds with written notice of applicable limitation periods in claims brought after July 1, 2012.